Friends of Science greasing the political wheel

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Politics is a funny thing. It's like a great magician. When the trick is performed flawlessly, we all sit there wondering how it happened. A great politician uses the same basic skills as the magician; slight of hand, illusionary tricks and most definitely, showing you only what they want you to see. The great optics can be both a boon and a bust. With politicians, that bust is often spectacular.

Global warming-specifically as we know it in the current polemics of the day-is one of the best venues to observe such mastery of misdirection and magic. The media savvy stage hands at this point have crafted their skills perhaps as adeptly as the political masters they serve.

Now, like any political puppet show, the position a person takes is often a direct result of their political persuasion. While the public perception of the issue has now transcended the boundaries of nominal political leaning, there remains a loud minority outside of the central positioning of global warming.

A good deal of heated debate now swirls about on the motivation of all those involved, and as per normal, the almighty dollar lands up front.

There is a story developing right now, and has been in the works for some time now. Friends of Science, a non profit group based in Calgary, has been campaigning against the mainstream theory of the causes of global warming, and specifically against the Kyoto mandates.

Back in 2006, The Globe and Mail exposed the discrete fashion by which the organization had been receiving funds from the energy industry. While they dared not take funds directly from the energy companies to help fund their fledgling organization, they found in Barry Cooper a valuable friend. As a faculty member in Political Science at the University of Calgary, Dr. Cooper set up the Science Education Fund. Dr.Cooper then suggested to donors that they make their contributions through the Calgary Fund. This proved to be most useful, as the fund protects the anonymity of donors to such funds, and gives the donating party some charitable status. In this indirect manner, the FoS were able to procure $200,000 for their activities, as well as the travel expenses of one of their star media fellows, Dr. Tim Ball.

The funds helped create the video Climate Catastrophe Canceled. In the first press release, the video starts off with the UoC crest with the university name listed first, then followed by FoS. FoS maintained that Dr. Cooper obtained permission to use the universities name and crest. Roman Cooney the VP of external relations at the UoC says that is not true. All mention and appearance of the UoC were removed after the university administration was made aware of this fact.

It get's even more tangled yet. The fund that Dr. Cooper set up at the school, and it's involvement with the Calgary fund are a particular concern. The university would not mind that funds pass through them for research, but when funds pass through as third party election donations, that becomes a much bigger problem.

The ad campaign that the video was a part of, broke out during the previous federal election campaign. Curiously, it landed in Ontario, in Liberal ridings where the incumbent Liberals held slim leads in the polls. In some of these ridings, the Conservatives did manage to take the seats. Whether or not these were third party election advertisements remains to be seen. A complaint was recently filed with Elections Canada to investigate the seemingly happy coincident for the FoS and the Conservative Party.

The FoS are not a research organization. They had registered lobbyists in Ottawa and they do not participate in peer review. More importantly, the UoC needs to sever all ties to this botched vanishing act by the FoS and elections Canada will have yet another questionable incident by the Governing Conservative party to investigate.

How the act will finish is not yet known. Will the cables holding the mirrors break and reveal the elephant behind them? We'll have to sit and wait.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
I don't think it is true that Friends of Science gets any dollars from the Oil companies but who cares? It is not like the people who support the "consencess view" don't exploit the climate of fear in order to pad up their research dollars.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
I don't think it is true that Friends of Science gets any dollars from the Oil companies but who cares? It is not like the people who support the "consencess view" don't exploit the climate of fear in order to pad up their research dollars.



You honestly don't get the difference? It's one thing to get paid to do research and put out findings as they simply are. It's another thing altogether to get paid to create a perspective regardless of the data.

The tabacco companies paid some of these very same people to make the public believe that there was no concrete evidence that cigarette smoke caused cancer. And hey, with people like yourself out there, such a campaign worked. It creates confusion around the issues and confusion helps to cause inaction or weakens the rate by which a response is created.

It's the same sleaze garbage. Doesn't matter that people are getting sick and not knowing the real truth to make a proper judgement for themselves, and it doesn't matter now that we might be damaging the planet by which we need to live on.

****g scum is what these types of people are. But go right ahead. Support them. They need their dollars more than you need your quality of life.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Friends of Science has yet to produce a single peer reviewed piece of science. Comparing them to scientists that actively work under the umbrella of peer review is not possible. If you`re going to bring up the motivation of employed researchers, it is entirely relevant to be scrutinizing of where the funding for FoS comes from. Also, scientists generally do not speak about their work until it has been published. The journals tend to frown on that.

They admitted that part of their funding does come from the oil and gas industry, at least through the Calgary Fund, and that in turn was funneled into the Science Education fund.

The point is that some of these dollars appears to have made it into election campaigns, and FoS is not on the Elections Canada list of recognized third party advertisers for 2006. The rules by Elections Canada also ban the issuance of tax receipts for any of these $3000 maximum per riding ads, and as the money appears to have gone through the aforementioned charitable status of the funds set up, this would indeed be a problem.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
You honestly don't get the difference? It's one thing to get paid to do research and put out findings as they simply are. It's another thing altogether to get paid to create a perspective regardless of the data.
These scientist all have their own field of research and don't need funding from big oil. I don't believe that they would be their if they didn't believe in their conclusions.
The tabacco companies paid some of these very same people to make the public believe that there was no concrete evidence that cigarette smoke caused cancer.
The statistical evidence that cigarette's caused cancer was never very strong. Our government has brain washed us into believing that if you smoke you are going to get cancer and you are going to get cancer early in life. Most smokers don't typically end up with cancer until they are pretty close to their expiry date anyway. The mean age of death for smokers is probably only five years less then that of a non smoker.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Friends of Science has yet to produce a single peer reviewed piece of science. Comparing them to scientists that actively work under the umbrella of peer review is not possible. If you`re going to bring up the motivation of employed researchers, it is entirely relevant to be scrutinizing of where the funding for FoS comes from. Also, scientists generally do not speak about their work until it has been published. The journals tend to frown on that.
I am not sure about the publication recored of friends of science but I know there is a lot of peer reviewed science that supports what they say. I'm sure they spend more time focusing on science published by others then producing their own papers.
They admitted that part of their funding does come from the oil and gas industry, at least through the Calgary Fund, and that in turn was funneled into the Science Education fund.
Can you show me this on their web sight? Anyway, a lot of people who do research that supports the "consensus view" get funded by environmental advocates. I hardly see why one rode is more ethical then the other.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Here are the facts on smoking:


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1519

Interestingly enough that there isn't much difference in the percentage of non smokers as compared to the percentage of smokers who survive to 100.

This is interesting

During the 19th century much tobacco was smoked in pipes or as cigars and little was smoked as cigarettes, but during the first few decades of the 20th century the consumption of manufactured cigarettes increased greatly.1 This led eventually to a rapid increase in male lung cancer, particularly in the United Kingdom (where the disease became by the 1940s a major cause of death). Throughout the first half of the 20th century the hazards of smoking had remained largely unsuspected.1 Around the middle of the century, however, several case-control studies of lung cancer were published in Western Europe2-6 and North America,7-10 leading to the conclusion in 1950 that smoking was "a cause, and an important cause" of the disease.5
I guess pipe smoking is better for you even though it is not filtered.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Can you show me this on their web sight? Anyway, a lot of people who do research that supports the "consensus view" get funded by environmental advocates. I hardly see why one rode is more ethical then the other.

No, I can't show it to you from their website. Professor Cooper admitted as did FoS spokesman Albert Jacobs in a Globe and Mail article by Charles Montgomery. They can't very well put it on their website that the video was funded in part by oil and gas contributions when they state from the outright that :
We are independent of corporations, governments, and other organizations, and receive no funding from them(emphasis mine)

They have already been caught making fraudulent claims about some of their 'experts' like Tim Ball. He sued another scientist and the Calgary Herald for a response they ran to his op-ed hit piece. After the defendants filed their statement of defense, the suit was dropped.

Anyway, a lot of people who do research that supports the "consensus view" get funded by environmental advocates. I hardly see why one rode is more ethical then the other.

Again, FoS does not do research, there is no comparison. By far the majority of the funding for the 'consensus view' comes from grants, fellowships and government funding.

But again this wasn't the point of my original post. The point was how the money has allegedly passed from this organization to a political campaign and third party advertising.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Here are the facts on smoking:


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1519

Interestingly enough that there isn't much difference in the percentage of non smokers as compared to the percentage of smokers who survive to 100.

Umm, yes there is. The chart shows that smokers have 0% chance of surviving past 95, while 10% of non-smokers will survive past 95. The tail of any distribution makes for lousy comparisons. Look at the percentages of men in both treatment groups surviving to an age of 80.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
They have already been caught making fraudulent claims about some of their 'experts' like Tim Ball. He sued another scientist and the Calgary Herald for a response they ran to his op-ed hit piece. After the defendants filed their statement of defense, the suit was dropped.
You not really proving much to me.

Again, FoS does not do research, there is no comparison. By far the majority of the funding for the 'consensus view' comes from grants, fellowships and government funding.
And government funding is unbiased? Look at government funded groups like the "status of woman" and tell me that government doesn't have its own agenda.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Politics is a funny thing...
An excellent post Ton, my only question is...

Why is it funding from big oil is seen as it is, as something bad.

In todays political climate (pun intented), where would groups or organisations that wish to research or fundamentally challenge the AGW theory get their funding from?

We've all read the articles of Scholars not recieving grants because of their position on the topic. So if that were to be the truth, is Oil Industry funding automaticall tainted?
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Umm, yes there is. The chart shows that smokers have 0% chance of surviving past 95, while 10% of non-smokers will survive past 95. The tail of any distribution makes for lousy comparisons. Look at the percentages of men in both treatment groups surviving to an age of 80.

I'm not sure. It would help if they showed the data points by the chart. The research seems good but I'm slightly bothered by the fact I haven't found a definition of what constitutes a smoker. Is it one pack a day or one cigarette a day? From the chart I showed you I'd guesstimate that the mean age of death difference between a smoker and a non smoker is about 7 years. The 10 years which people usually quote is the difference at the median. This is not the same thing as the difference in the mean.

One chart I found very interesting is



It really highlights the advances in modern medicine. I looks like that for people who make it to 60 that thanks to modern medicine there is only about 3 to 4 years in the life expectancy difference between smokers and non smokers.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
An excellent post Ton, my only question is...

Why is it funding from big oil is seen as it is, as something bad.

In todays political climate (pun intented), where would groups or organisations that wish to research or fundamentally challenge the AGW theory get their funding from?

We've all read the articles of Scholars not recieving grants because of their position on the topic. So if that were to be the truth, is Oil Industry funding automaticall tainted?

There's lots of groups out there that will give funding. The articles still pop up in Science or Nature. There are sympathetic funding organizations, and sympathetic government grant agencies. My opinion is that the scholars who do not receive funds are probably presenting their funding applications in such a way that that the funding organization does not feel comfortable. Funding organizations want the research in top journals. If you look at the research that has been done, it's riddled with smoothing techniques and statistical manipulation that doesn't fit well. The 'consensus' that exists is due to the nature of science. If your results are repeatable and accurately portray the physical system you study, well then that was good work. If you remove upper temperature trends to show some correlation to cosmic rays and the observed temperature rise, well that doesn't fly. You might as well argue that the declining number of pirates are responsible for global warming.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
There's lots of groups out there that will give funding. The articles still pop up in Science or Nature. There are sympathetic funding organizations, and sympathetic government grant agencies. My opinion is that the scholars who do not receive funds are probably presenting their funding applications in such a way that that the funding organization does not feel comfortable. Funding organizations want the research in top journals. If you look at the research that has been done, it's riddled with smoothing techniques and statistical manipulation that doesn't fit well. The 'consensus' that exists is due to the nature of science. If your results are repeatable and accurately portray the physical system you study, well then that was good work. If you remove upper temperature trends to show some correlation to cosmic rays and the observed temperature rise, well that doesn't fly. You might as well argue that the declining number of pirates are responsible for global warming.
Statistical manupulation happens all the time. The article on the stats involved in tobaco being the number one killer in Canada are proof of that.

People lighting a cigarette in their car careening off the road and dying, is not smoking related as they present the statistic.

Someone falling asleep with a lit smoke and burning to death is not smoking related as they present the statistic.

If the science is based on the statistics and a matter of repeatablity, how are we to believe that the stats are clean from either side?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
You not really proving much to me.


And government funding is unbiased? Look at government funded groups like the "status of woman" and tell me that government doesn't have its own agenda.

It's a matter of public record. The article is available from the paper online if you have a subscription, but if not it's available here from the journalists website.

I never said government funding wasn't biased. The funds available for research are controlled by the government. The allocation of those funds are dispensed by the experts on the funding panels. They have biases too.

This is the last time I'll say this, I'm not arguing the biases of funding. I'm arguing that there appears to be a discrepancy in the way this funding was funneled and possible legal action by Elections Canada.

I'm not sure. It would help if they showed the data points by the chart. The research seems good but I'm slightly bothered by the fact I haven't found a definition of what constitutes a smoker. Is it one pack a day or one cigarette a day? From the chart I showed you I'd guesstimate that the mean age of death difference between a smoker and a non smoker is about 7 years. The 10 years which people usually quote is the difference at the median. This is not the same thing as the difference in the mean.

Which data points do you want? It shows the %survival next to the lines in ten year increments. The conclusion seems to be that non-smokers live ten years longer.

One chart I found very interesting is



It really highlights the advances in modern medicine. I looks like that for people who make it to 60 that thanks to modern medicine there is only about 3 to 4 years in the life expectancy difference between smokers and non smokers.

It also highlights the increasing margins of survival between smokers and non-smokers, which to me shows how adding toxic chemicals to the manufacturing process is the major contributor to tobacco related mortality.

Statistical manupulation happens all the time. The article on the stats involved in tobaco being the number one killer in Canada are proof of that.

People lighting a cigarette in their car careening off the road and dying, is not smoking related as they present the statistic.

I would call that a case of either or. Theres no way to know for sure, but would the car have careened off the road if the driver maintained a normal driving posture, instead of reaching for an ignition source or cigarette?

Someone falling asleep with a lit smoke and burning to death is not smoking related as they present the statistic.

If the science is based on the statistics and a matter of repeatablity, how are we to believe that the stats are clean from either side?

Cigarette research and climate research are two different monsters. If the stats aren't robust in response to changes in the data, that suggests that there are some fundamental flaws. If we remove driving/smoking related deaths from the calculations, and there is little change, then there is no problem. Really what it boils down to is how often does this crossover actually happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: s243a

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary

It also highlights the increasing margins of survival between smokers and non-smokers, which to me shows how adding toxic chemicals to the manufacturing process is the major contributor to tobacco related mortality.

Ops your right!. I read that one backwards. The life expectance difference has increase despite modern medicine. Perhaps tobacco companies put far worse things in cigarettes then tobacco. That in my opinion is criminal because I fail to see how these carcinogens added to cigarettes by tobacco companies would do any thing for the smoker to enhance their enjoyment of the cigarette.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
I disagree with that and here is a graph that clearly shows I was in fact correct in the first place and everyone is just copying me!

 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Ops your right!. I read that one backwards. The life expectance difference has increase despite modern medicine. Perhaps tobacco companies put far worse things in cigarettes then tobacco. That in my opinion is criminal because I fail to see how these carcinogens added to cigarettes by tobacco companies would do any thing for the smoker to enhance their enjoyment of the cigarette.

I think it has something to do with keeping freshness and smooth burning, or BS. Ammonia was added as a 'flavor enhancer', but in actuality it increases the absorption of nicotine in your lungs. Propylene glycol keeps the tobacco from drying out, but again it also increases nicotine absorption. I think it should be criminal.